McClatchy poll shows majority favor extending all Bush tax rates

posted at 11:31 am on July 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

When Barack Obama proposed once again to hike taxes on people earning at or above $250,000, he insisted that polls showed that the American people agreed with him. It was an odd defense, seeing as how his own party refused to push that proposal last year in the Senate, which it controls, but Obama has forced them back into a tough position on the tax hike. Outgoing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) announced Thursday that he would oppose it, joining Joe Lieberman and putting Harry Reid in a tough spot:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said Thursday he’s opposed to President Barack Obama’s plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to household income under $250,000 for one year, joining Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as two members of the 53-member Senate Democratic Caucus who plan to vote against the plan.

“That’s a no,” Webb told Reuters when asked if he’d vote for the plan.

Webb has called for taxes to be increased on dividends and capital gains instead, and his spokesman, Will Jenkins, told POLITICO: “Sen. Webb has consistently stated that he opposes raising taxes on ordinary earned income.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House now cannot risk any more defections if they want to show they have majority support in the Senate.

A new poll from Marist and McClatchy make the position of Reid and Obama even tougher. Contrary to Obama’s claim, a majority of registered voters want all of the current tax rates extended, even those of the highest earners:

A majority of Americans want the Bush tax cuts extended for everyone, despite a strong push by President Barack Obama to eliminate them on higher incomes, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, while 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold [sic].

The news gets worse for Obama in the demographics, even if McClatchy has a problem with reporting on the issue:

Young voters ages 18-29 favored tax cuts for everyone by a margin of 69-29, the largest margin of any age group.

Latinos favored tax cuts for all incomes by 62 percent to 36 percent. Whites supported tax cuts for every income by 50 percent to 44 percent. African-Americans split, 48 percent for limiting the tax cuts to incomes below $250,000 and 47 percent for extending them to all incomes.

And those making less than $50,000 supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53 percent to 41 percent.

It’s not a tax cut. The cut occurred nine years ago. These are the current tax rates. The question isn’t whether to cut taxes, it’s whether they should be raised, and on whom. Even worse, the pollster asked the question using the phrase “extending the tax cuts” — and still ended up with majorities across a wide range of demographics supporting an extension for all earners.

Nor are those the only demos in which it becomes clear that Obama’s holding the more extreme position and not his opponents. A majority of independents oppose raising taxes on high-end earners, 53/41. More than a third of Obama supporters (37%), and forty percent of Democrats overall, want the current rates to remain in place. A narrow plurality of women want them left in place, 49/44.

By the way, this isn’t exactly a polling type that’s unfriendly to Obama, either. It samples registered voters rather than likely voters, which should make this a little more sympathetic to liberal policies. The D/R/I is 36/29/34, which undersamples Republicans by at least six points. None of this helps Obama on this issue.

With that in mind, there’s even more bad news in this poll for Obama. His favorability numbers, which some suggested might be his line of defense, have fallen below 50% into a 49/46 virtual wash. Mitt Romney’s is 46/42, which means he might have more upside; voters already know Obama well enough after four years in office. Obama also only gets a 47/47 on job approval despite the Democratic tilt, and he’s slightly underwater among independents, 44/47. He’s stuck in a virtual tie with Romney 48/46, but losing among independents by four, 44/48. Interestingly, his support among African-American voters is only 78/15 — perhaps a result of his inexplicable decision to snub the NAACP convention this year.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

That’s right and I get sick of hearing he did. Taxes revenues INCREASED DRAMATICALLY under Bush, they were not CUT.

What Bush cut was TAX RATES. Can we please start saying this right and stop falling into the Left’s “Bush tax cuts caused the deficit” trap? How the hell does INCREASING tax revenues cause a deficit? Only in the mind of a liberal does this math make sense.

The “great” orator’s teleprompter told him to say that! The Obumbler has always been against raising taxes on anyone…Don’t be surprised, he’ll say anything. Isn’t it fun to watch the so called “one” fall to Earth and squirm amongst his minions?

His favorability numbers, which some suggested might be his line of defense, have fallen below 50% into a 49/46 virtual wash. Mitt Romney’s is 46/42, which means he might have more upside; voters already know Obama well enough after four years in office. Obama also only gets a 47/47 on job approval despite the Democratic tilt, and he’s slightly underwater among independents, 44/47. He’s stuck in a virtual tie with Romney 48/46, but losing among independents by four, 44/48. Interestingly, his support among African-American voters is only 78/15 — perhaps a result of his inexplicable decision to snub the NAACP convention this year.

…I never, never, never can understand (yes I know people are stupid) how JugEars can get more than the high 20’s.

For those who don’t think too deeply, Rush explained it yesterday, if you caught it and he did a good job.

The Terrible Rich will save a lot of money, even if the tax rates are only extended in certain tax brackets, because we ALL pay 10% on the first $8000; 15% on the money you earn up to $35,000 of adjusted income; 25% on the next bunch of money to $85K, etc.

And when Obama changes it, he currently does not have the power to make Millionaires pay without marginal tax rates, because the tax rates actually apply to everyone, not people labeled millionaires.

If you make $6000 this year and don’t think you are a millionaire, you will still pay thru each marginal rate, next year when your ship comes in, and the government cannot make a tax rate just for certain people. And we do not tax your accumulated wealth, not directly anyway.

You can be a millionaire and earn no money next year, and pay no taxes. Of course it is not likely, but for instance if you had your cash in tax free muni’s you can do that and be like the John Kerry-Heinzes.

But seriously, that is what many elderly do, they don’t “take” income out of their accounts when the taxes are higher. They just take whatever the IRA law tells them they have to take. They don’t pay taxes on money to take it out and move it to new investments.

The president is a social worker in chief and has no clue about any of this, but I don’t think his wife will like it if he just gives his money away. I think Michelle, though she protests too much, likes money as much as the Clinton’s ever did.

It’s not a tax cut. The cut occurred nine years ago. These are the current tax rates. The question isn’t whether to cut taxes, it’s whether they should be raised, and on whom. Even worse, the pollster asked the question using the phrase “extending the tax cuts” — and still ended up with majorities across a wide range of demographics supporting an extension for all earners.

I’m glad to see that you’re challenging the language of this, Ed. You’re right, a “cut” implies a change from the status quo. The current rates are now the status quo. Failing to uphold the status quo means that the Democrats would be raising taxes.

…I never, never, never can understand (yes I know people are stupid) how JugEars can get more than the high 20′s.

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I suspect it might be because the American people don’t like disliking their president, especially to the level Obama deserves. I don’t know the numbers, but I imagine a lot of people still liked Nixon even after all the proof was there that he was a crook.

I also think most Americans prefer loving our United States despite the left doing everything to make us hate it for the past fifty years.

The ‘affection’ for Obiteme, I tend to believe, isn’t because he’s a great guy and people actually think so. I’m of the view we, as a people, simply don’t want to feel the disdain he has earned.

Webb has called for taxes to be increased on dividends and capital gains instead, and his spokesman, Will Jenkins, told POLITICO: “Sen. Webb has consistently stated that he opposes raising taxes on ordinary earned income.”

Hmmmm. A sure winner for the unemployment problem. He might also want to consider raising the minimum wage again because it always leads to more hiring.

…I never, never, never can understand (yes I know people are stupid) how JugEars can get more than the high 20′s.

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM

What you need to understand is that absent of strong third party candidate the Republican nominee would get at least 45% of the vote and the democrat nominee would get at least 45% of the vote even if the DEVIL is running as the nominee of the party. That is really not hard to understand and it is a basic fact of American politics.

Interesting. I wonder what the contribution of Mitt’s visit vis a vis Obama’s lack thereof contributes to that number.

ted c on July 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Nothing… the blacks would vote over 90% of the democrat candidate even if he is the DEVIL… nothing is going to change this… It is over when it comes to the black vote… Republicans should better focus on the Hispanics vote and prevent it from becoming like the black vote i.e. at least 9:1 ratio in favor of the democrats.

I am not a fan of Nixon but he wasn’t a crook. Yes he was paranoid of the media but for good reasons. Yes he kept an enemies list but getting on it meant you didn’t get A list invites to WH parties. Yes he did lie to cover up a third rate burglary carried out without his knowledge. He was never accused of stealing anything hence not a crook.

…I never, never, never can understand (yes I know people are stupid) how JugEars can get more than the high 20′s.

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM

When half the people don’t pay income taxes and vote with their “feelings”, what else would one expect?

That said, polls, of course, only reflect what the participants tell the pollster, not necessarily how they’re really going to vote. Plus, when asked about Obama, there’s a good percentage of voters who won’t say anything bad about him to a stranger/pollster, even if they have strong negative leanings.

Thank you. I was only 12 when Nixon resigned, and I didn’t know exactly what he did, but it was a sad thing, at least to me. Looking back, if it were today, he would never be impeached for what went on. Obama is 100 times worse than Nixon. It’s not a fair comparison.

I am not a fan of Nixon but he wasn’t a crook. Yes he was paranoid of the media but for good reasons. Yes he kept an enemies list but getting on it meant you didn’t get A list invites to WH parties. Yes he did lie to cover up a third rate burglary carried out without his knowledge. He was never accused of stealing anything hence not a crook.

chemman on July 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I only used a quick encompassing term to make my point. Sorry I was unclear there.

I liked Nixon, too, though I was quite young when he was president. I remember watching his resignation speech live, and all I could think was, “Oh, hell no!” I love history-in-the-making, but not like that.

The media hated Nixon since the late 50s, I know, and the man couldn’t go to the bathroom without some reporter all but following him into the john. Sadly, the MSLM has become much worse.

Look, low tax rates are desirable for a lot of reasons. But revenues did drop due to Bush’s tax cuts. Tax revenues dropped 3 years straight from 2001-2003, the first time that’s happened in modern U.S. history (post 1940). Adjusted for inflation, tax revenues are now well below 2000 or 2001 levels.

Again, low taxes are a great thing, but let’s use solid arguments to back them.

I suspect it [Obama’s inexplicably high favorability] might be because the American people don’t like disliking their president, especially to the level Obama deserves. I don’t know the numbers, but I imagine a lot of people still liked Nixon even after all the proof was there that he was a crook. […]

Liam on July 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I think you may be on to something there — it could explain why Obummer’s ratings are as high as they are. There’s an interesting page on Gallup’s site, “Historical Favorability Ratings of Presidents“, that supports your theory in general (although not the part about Nixon). Excerpt:

Americans consistently rate presidents much more favorably than unfavorably on the scale. A review of all scalometer ratings finds not a single instance in which a president has received more negative than positive evaluations while in office. In October 1975, however, a little more than a year after he resigned the presidency, 71% rated Richard Nixon unfavorably and 27% rated him favorably. (No ratings of Nixon were taken in 1974, the year he resigned.)

O/T…but in other news about another troubled chicago politician it seems Jackson Jr.’s mood disorder is otherwise known as disappointment…

“CHICAGO (CBS) — The mother of U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. broke her silence about her son’s illness, acknowledging the congressman has had trouble dealing the “enormous disappointment” over the past few years.

While at the bank today, a couple set up an “impeach Obama” booth nearby. This is MICHIGAN and the anger against President Obama couldn’t be any higher.

Even in Wayne County (the most Democratic friendly county which includes the city of Detroit and surrounding suburbs) I’ve seen all kinds of anger towards the President.

There isn’t any excitement anywhere I go even from President Obama supporters to suggest a high turnout for him.

Don’t believe the poll numbers as they can not explain the realities regarding voter turnout. The excitement to get rid of Obama in Michigan is palpable, while pro-Obama types seem to be dreadfully silent about being pro-Obama. Anyone can say, “I support Obama” or “Obama is Likable” but come election day….they may be a no show.

Look, low tax rates are desirable for a lot of reasons. But revenues did drop due to Bush’s tax cuts. Tax revenues dropped 3 years straight from 2001-2003, the first time that’s happened in modern U.S. history (post 1940). Adjusted for inflation, tax revenues are now well below 2000 or 2001 levels.

Again, low taxes are a great thing, but let’s use solid arguments to back them.

AngusMc on July 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM

America’s GDP had grown at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent during the six quarters preceding the 2003 tax cuts; in the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
The S&P 500 had dropped 18 percent during the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, but it increased by 32 percent during the six quarters following the cuts.
The economy had lost 267,000 jobs during the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. During the six quarters after the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs. And during the seven quarters thereafter, another 5 million jobs were created.
After the capital gains tax reduction of 2003, capital gains revenues to the government more than doubled, to $103 billion. Previous capital gains tax cuts had shown similar results. By encouraging investment, lower capital gains taxes increase funding for the technologies, businesses, ideas, and projects that make workers and the economy more productive. Such investment is vital for long-term economic growth.

By using 2003 as an arbitrary end date you are skewing the numbers, and the argument.

Don’t believe the poll numbers as they can not explain the realities regarding voter turnout. The excitement to get rid of Obama in Michigan is palpable, while pro-Obama types seem to be dreadfully silent about being pro-Obama. Anyone can say, “I support Obama” or “Obama is Likable” but come election day….they may be a no show.

Varchild on July 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Precisely why, barring proof of a gay lover or pedophilia, or worse, Romney will win in a landslide. BTW, in my electoral college count, I include Michigan in Romney’s total, for the same reasons you’ve witnessed.

…I never, never, never can understand (yes I know people are stupid) how JugEars can get more than the high 20′s.

KOOLAID2 on July 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM

it beats me too…I’m looking at those figures and it is just surreal, as in what is wrong with these people, 46% still support him????? notwithstanding the pollster bias and oversampling of Dems, still support for this dunderhead shouldn’t be anywhere near that high…whatever they put in these people’s water is not in my water, I can tell this fo sho…

as Obowmao isolates and alienates blocks and blocks of voters, doesn’t it seem as though there must be some other plan? He seems at times to not want a second term!

screwauger on July 14, 2012 at 1:27 PM

It does seem so doesn’t it? We know that he is a profoundly lazy and unaccomplished man, so he probably would prefer to just spend the rest of his life golfing and watching ESPN. The political pressure from the boss Valerie Jarrett and his wife though has to be enormous.

From the wife, part of it is that he is her meal ticket. Without little Bammie in office, she has no more exotic vacations on our dime, no more truckloads of Maine lobster and Wagyu beef delivered to the White House kitchen. No more free designer clothes.

Don’t believe the poll numbers as they can not explain the realities regarding voter turnout.
Varchild on July 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM

yep, this is very true, voter turnout is never a forecast variable…as a pollster though, if you want to see which side mobilizes better, it is actually a good idea to make voter turnout a variable…but don’t expect to see that in the current models, or included in any pollster’s survey design…

Look, low tax rates are desirable for a lot of reasons. But revenues did drop due to Bush’s tax cuts. Tax revenues dropped 3 years straight from 2001-2003, the first time that’s happened in modern U.S. history (post 1940).

Something else happened around 2001 for the first time in modern U.S. history, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Eh, maybe it will come to me. Oh, and last time I checked, 2001-2003 is 2 years.

Adjusted for inflation, tax revenues are now well below 2000 or 2001 levels.

That’s what 11%-13% real unemployment and the worst recovery ever from a recession will do to you. If we had a 4%-5% unemployment rate instead, revenues would be fine.

Again, low taxes are a great thing, but let’s use solid arguments to back them.

If the reality is actually bleak for Obama and his campaign, you’ll never see it in word or print from his syndicate nor the LSM, his official propaganda wing, unless its a pr move to motivate to stimulate increased financial support.

We have seen and will see more desperate moves on his behalf to better his odds in November.

yep, this is very true, voter turnout is never a forecast variable…as a pollster though, if you want to see which side mobilizes better, it is actually a good idea to make voter turnout a variable

If Obama’s campaign can’t motivate and mobilize his faithful and they can’t find it in themselves to vote for his re-election, they may just decide to stay home on November, and since they aren’t likely to vote for Romney anyway, that would be fine by me.

I laugh to the point of drooling every time a liberal talking head gets on and says not RAISING taxes from the current rates (which they call extending tax cuts disingenuously) would cost Americans 3 trillion a year or whatever stupid figure they pull out of their hats.

Never once in those liberal talking heads does the idea of cutting SPENDING ever occur, except to argue against it at every mention.

Just think of is this way, and perhaps this should be an ad for Romney; have a book keeper for a small company on the ad explaining how raising taxes on that so called “rich” small business will eliminate his job, 2 of the warehouse jobs, and 5 of the installer jobs for instance. THEN take into account lost jobs from obamacare and it’s mandates on businesses and the owner might just close the doors or shrink the company from 50 people down to a 2 or 3 man operation again.

That will graphically show what the libs want, everyone on welfare, unemployment, and food stamps so they are forced to vote to keep their gimmies instead of working or growing a successful business.

Senate Democrats will push a one-year tax cut proposal for individual Americans earning $200,000 or less annually, setting the stage for a showdown in coming weeks with Republicans over extending the Bush tax cuts, according to a new plan circulating on Capitol Hill.

Couples with a combined $250,000 income will also be covered by the Democratic proposal.

Maintaining current rates for those individual earning $200,000 or less annually or couples with a combined $250,000 income IS NOT A TAX CUT.

I ask you to take note of the fact that Obama and the Democrats have gone from campaigning on making these “cuts” permanent to now offering a “one-year extension.”

There is a reason for the change for those smart enough to understand math and to those of us who listen closely to the words Democrats say:

In the near term, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.

Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000 — at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

“As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction,” Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told a forum on deficit reduction.

That was in 2010, but fear not. His aims haven’t changed!

Following a speech before the Centre for American Progress, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said Monday. 9 July 2012, he would support tax increases on those who earn less than $250,000 at some point in the future.